1 2026:HHC:31738 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.113 of 2026 Reserved on: 07.07.2026 Decided on: 31.07.2026 Uploaded on: 31.07.2026 State of H.P. …Petitioner Versus Mudasir Ahmad and Ors. …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Aditya Kaushal, Legal Aid Counsel, for respondents No.1 & 2. Ms. Swati Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.3, 8, 35, 46 & 47. Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate for respondents No.4, 27, 31 and 38. Mr. Abhimanyu Thakur, Advocate for respondents No.6, 10, 14, 16, 37, 42 and 45. Mr. Hari Om Prakash, Advocate, for respondent No.7. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.9. Mr. Aditya Chouhan, Advocate for respondents No.12, 13, 15, 18, 25, 29, 30, 40 and 53. Ms. Suman Thakur, Advocate for respondents No.17, 24, 39 and 44. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:31738 Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.19. Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate for respondents No.20, 33, and 41. Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate for respondents No.21, 22 and 41. Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.22 and 28. Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.26. Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.32. Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.43. Mr. Shakti Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.45. Ms. Anamika Kohli, Advocate vice Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate, for respondent No.48 and 51. Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.49. Virender Singh, Judge State of Himachal Pradesh has filed the present criminal revision, against the order dated 21.07.2025, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge-I, Shimla. (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court), in a trial No.NDPS ACT/23/2025, arising out of FIR No.50 of 2024, dated 19.09.2024, registered under Sections 21, 27-A, 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS’), read with Section 3 2026:HHC:31738 111 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’) with Police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P., titled as State of H.P. versus Mudasir Ahmad Mochi and others. 2. By of the order dated 21.07.2025, the learned trial Court has discharged the respondents from the offences, punishable under Section 27-A of NDPS Act and Section 111 of BNS. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis, are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned trial Court. 4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present criminal revision, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:- 4.1. That on 18.09.2024, SI Mehar Chand, I.O. ANTF(FU) CID, along with other police official, left the office in official vehicle, bearing registration No.HP03C-5663, for patrolling duty and duty to detect the crime relating to narcotics, towards Dhalli, Theog, Kotkhai, Jubbal, and Kharapathar. 4.2. When, the I.O., along with other police official, was present at a place known as Kharapathar, then, he 4 2026:HHC:31738 received a secret information regarding the fact that Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, son of Shri Mohammad Makbool, village Bhatpura, Post Office Sunitpura, Tehsil Karolpura, District Kupwara, Jammu and Kashmir, is travelling in a taxi No.HP01-A-5028, from Shimla to Rohru and he was having large quantity of Chitta/Heroin with him. 4.3. As per the information, he was going to Rohru, in order to sell the same to someone and in case, the said vehicle is intercepted and the bag of Muddasir Ahmad Mochi is searched, then, large quantity of Chitta could be recovered. 4.4. The said information was found to be authentic and reliable. As per the I.O., due to paucity of time, in case, he would have obtained search warrants, in that situation, the possibility of removal of the contraband was there. As such, the I.O. complied with the provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and submitted the report to his superior. 4.5. Thereafter, the I.O. put picketing between Kotkhai- Kharapathar and contacted Up Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Darkoti Ramesh Chauhan on telephone. After sometime, Ramesh Chauhan and Ravinder Chauhan, 5 2026:HHC:31738 reached at the spot. They were apprised about the secret information and associated in the raiding party, as independent witnesses. 4.6. It has also been mentioned in the status report that at about 8.55 p.m., as per the information, taxi No.HP01A-5028, reached on the spot from Kotkhai side. With the help of police officials, the said vehicle was got stopped on the side of the road and the driver and the person, sitting on the rear seat, were apprised about the secret information. 4.7. On inquiry, the driver disclosed his name as Deepan Lal and the person, sitting on the rear seat, disclosed his name as Muddasir Ahmad Mochi. Thereafter, the bag, which Muddasir Ahmad Mochi was carrying, was searched, along with vehicle. From the bag, as well as, from the vehicle, nothing incriminating was found. This fact, was documented. 4.8. Thereafter, the option, as per Section 50 was given to the driver, as well as, Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, upon which, both of them had opted to give their search to the gazetted police officer. Thereafter, at about 12.20 a.m., Dy. S.P. Sidharth Sharma, SDPO, Theog, was requested to 6 2026:HHC:31738 come to the spot, upon which, he had reached at the spot at 1.25 a.m. Meanwhile, Constable Vikrant reached at the spot along with the receipt of the information, under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act. 4.9. Thereafter, SDPO had inquired from Deepan Lal and Muddasir Ahmad Mochi and oral direction was given to SI Mehar Chand to search Muddasir Ahmad Mochi. During search, from the underwear of accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, a black coloured plastic envelope was found, which, on opening, was found to be containing 468.380 grams of Chitta/Heroin. 4.10. Apart from this, currency notes of Rs.2530/- and Aadhar Card were also found, which were taken into possession. In the personal search of Deepan Lal, nothing incriminating was found. The entire process was photographed and videographed on the spot. As such Rukka was sent to the Police Station, for registration of the FIR, upon which, FIR, in question was registered. 4.11. Thereafter, SI Mehar Chand, submitted the photocopy of the information, under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, memo regarding personal search of the raiding party and official vehicle, along with carbon copy, search 7 2026:HHC:31738 memo of Taxi No.HP01A-5028 and personal bag, along with carbon copy, consent memo, under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, of accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi and Dipan Lal, along with carbon copy, memo regarding recovery of 468.380 grams of Chitta/Heroin, memo regarding personal search of driver Deepan Lal, along with carbon copy, Mobile phone marka ‘Redmi’ of accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, by virtue of which, taxi No.HP01A-5028 Alto 800, along with documents, was taken into possession, along with carbon copy, photocopy of Rukka, parcel of case property, containing 468.380 grams of Chitta/Heroin, along with specimen seal having impression ‘M’, one cloth parcel containing currency notes of Rs.2530/- along with specimen seal, zimini No.1, along with carbon copy, NCB-I form in triplicate, along with carbon copy, Form No.1 duplicate, along with carbon copy, and other documents, before the Incharge, Police Station, Kotkhai. 4.12. The statements of the witnesses were recorded, under Section 180 of the BNSS. Thereafter, accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi was interrogated and was arrested on 19.09.2024, at about 2.30 a.m. Thereafter, the case 8 2026:HHC:31738 property was deposited with MHC Police Station, Kotkhai and the accused was medico-legally examined. 4.13. During investigation, the accused disclosed that he is in the business of selling Chitta/Heroin, as they are members of interstate gang, along with Shahi Mahatma. He has further deposed that he, in connivance with Pradeep Ranta @ Pankaj Ranta, used to bring Chitta from Delhi and give the same to Shahi Mahatma, whereas, Shahi Mahatma, through peddlers, used to sell the same in the Rohru area. Sometimes, peddlers used to take Chitta from the house of Shahi Mahatma at Pinjore. According to him, Shahi Mahatma is doing the business from the said house/room. 4.14. Muddasir Ahmad Mochi has also disclosed that accused Shahi Mahatma, through mobile phone location used to sell Chitta to the intended purchaser. Shahi Mahatma has purchased Sim card, in the name of Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, and after using his Aadhar Card and Pan Card, got opened 2-3 Bank accounts in Kashmir and used to get money, in those Bank accounts. Accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi sometimes through cheques and 9 2026:HHC:31738 sometimes through cash used to withdraw the same, and pay the said amount to Pradeep Ranta. 4.15. Accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, had also facilitated the contact of Shahi Mahatma with the smugglers in Kashmir and they were now planning to bring Chitta from Kashmir. On 19.09.2024, SDPO, constituted a SIT by deputing SHO Police Station, Theog as incharge of the SIT. 4.16. It is the further case of the police, as mentioned, in the status report, that on 20.09.2024, Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, was produced before the Court of JMFC Chopal, Camp at Theog, from where, he was remanded to police custody. Inventory of the case property was got prepared by producing the same before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chopal and samples were sent to SFSL Junga, whereas, the remaining case property was deposited with District Malkhana, Kaithu. On 20.09.2024, SIT incharge, Inspector Jaswant Singh associated Shahi Mahatma, in the investigation and he was arrested on 11.50 p.m. on that day. 4.17. During investigation, Shahi Mahatma has disclosed that from the last 8 months, he is in the business 10 2026:HHC:31738 of selling Chitta. Harinder Manta and Pradeep Kumar @ Pankaj Ranta are also involved in the business of distribution of Chitta and Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, is known to him for the last 5 years and all are in this business. Accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi and Pradeep Kumar @ Pankaj Ranta, used to purchase Chitta sometimes from Delhi and sometimes from Karnal, and hand over the same to him in his room at Pinjore, from where, Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, used to supply the Chitta at Rohru. Thereafter, he used to place the Chitta at different locations and from those locations, he used to further pass on to Rakesh @ Tinu, resident of Seema (Badali), Sarthak Sood resident of Rohru, Ravinder (Motta), Naresh resident of Bijori, Neeraj resident of Melthi and Ashu (Aate) resident of Rohru. 4.18. The above persons, according to Shahi Mahatma, after receiving the Chitta from different locations, used to separate the same in small packets and sell the same further to other persons. The persons, who used to purchase Chitta, used to contact him and transfer the amount in the bank account of Muddasir, which he had got opened in Srinagar (J&K). According to him, earlier 11 2026:HHC:31738 he had used his Dhanlaxmi bank account opened with Punjab National Bank and now he is using the bank accounts opened in the name of Muddasir Ahmad Mochi. 4.19. Shahi Mahatma, with the help of Harinder Manta and Pradeep Kumar @ Pankaj Ranta, has made a syndicate and they work, as drug peddlers and supply the same to different locations. In lieu of that, they used to give free Chitta to all the peddlers, for their consumption. Shahi Mahatma had also talked to the drugs smugglers of Kashmir; namely Mushtaq and Javed. 4.20. On 21.09.2024, accused Shahi Mahatma, was produced before the Court, from where, he was remanded to police custody. 4.21. It has been mentioned, in the status report, that on 20.09.2024, mobile phone of Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, was sent to SFSL Junga. On 23.09.2024, mobile phones of Shahi Mahatma and his wife were also taken into possession. Thereafter, those were sent to SFSL Junga. Result regarding mobile phone of Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, has been received. Service provider has been requested to provide the CDRs of mobile phones of Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, and Shahi Mahatma. 12 2026:HHC:31738 4.22. Thereafter, bank statements of accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi and Shahi Mahatma were obtained. Perusal of the same shows that there are transactions of crores of rupees in the bank accounts of above two accused persons. Shahi Mahatma is using his vehicle, bearing registration HP10C-1425, and after receiving the information regarding arrest of accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, on 19.09.2024, accused Shahi Mahatma, along with his companion Pankaj Ranta, had tried to flee away, in the said vehicle. Pankaj Ranta succeeded in fleeing away, whereas, accused Shahi Mahatma was arrested by RPF. 4.23. On 16.10.2024, accused Harinder Manta, was arrested, who, on inquiry, disclosed that he is in the habit of consuming Chitta from the year 2020 and earlier, he used to get Chitta from his friends, but, thereafter, he is purchasing the same from Delhi. In the year 2022, Solan police had arrested him for allegedly possessing 150 grams Chitta. Again, in the year 2023, he has been arrested by the Police, along with Chitta. Thereafter, in the month of January/February, he has contacted Shahi Mahatma for 13 2026:HHC:31738 purchasing Chitta, upon which, Shahi Mahatma, used to provide Chitta in Rohru. 4.24. Accused Harinder Manta, used to transfer the amount in the Bank account of Shahi Mahatma, maintained in ICICI Bank. Thereafter, Shahi Mahatma, used to forward him the location, from where, he used to lift Chitta. Thereafter, accused Shahi Mahatma had allured him to join the business of Chitta. The said offer was accepted and he had also joined the said business, thereafter. 4.25. Accused Harinder Manta used to purchase Chitta from Delhi from Nigerian national and on the directions of Shahi Mahtma, he used to keep Chitta at a particular location and in lieu of that, amount was paid to him in cash. In the month of March, 2024, amount was transferred online, but, mostly, he used to get amount in cash. In the month of March, 2024, he had purchased 100 grams Chitta on three occasions and sold the same in the area through Shahi Mahatma. On the basis of above facts, accused Harinder Manta was arrested. 4.26. Thereafter, the police had obtained the statement of bank account No.048701503074 maintained 14 2026:HHC:31738 by Harinder Manta with ICICI Bank Rohru. Perusal of the same shows that accused Harinder Manta, from his bank account had transferred a sum of Rs.21,500/- to the bank account of Shahi Mahatma, maintained with Mangal Das & Sons. During investigation, it has been found that accused Arvind Chauhan, has transferred a sum of Rs.1,65,000/-, in the bank account of Harinder Manta, from 18.07.2023 to 11.09.2024. 4.27. Similarly, accused Naresh had transferred a sum of Rs.14,000/- from 05.03.2024 to 12.09.2024, in the bank account of Harinder Manta. Apart from this, there is withdrawal of Rs.36,69,010/- and deposit of Rs.36,67,942/- in the bank account of Harinder Manta. 4.28. On analysis of the statement of account of accused Shahi Mahatma and Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, it was found that there were transactions of lacs of rupees in the bank account of Shahi Mahtama, maintained with ASP International Bank. 4.29. Thereafter, bank account statements of Shahi Mahatma, maintained with ASP International Bank were obtained and it was found that Deepak Sharma (applicant) 15 2026:HHC:31738 has made transactions from his bank account, which is linked with mobile No.93171-12131. 4.30. As per the said statement, on 22.05.2024, Deepak Sharma (applicant), has transferred a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 22.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 22.05.2024, a sum of Rs.700/-, on 23.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 23.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 23.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 31.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 31.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 01.06.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 01.06.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 02.06.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 02.06.2024, a sum of Rs.800/-, on 02.06.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 04.06.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 04.06.2024, a sum of Rs.500/-. Thus, a total sum of Rs.15,000/- was credited in his account. 4.31. Apart from this, in the bank account of Shahi Mahatma, maintained with Mangal Dass & Sons, there are transactions of Rs.5600/- on 11.09.2024 and in the Bank account No.7541002100001139, maintained with ASP International Bank, on 21.02.2024, he has transferred a sum of Rs.600/- on 21.02.2024, a sum of Rs.400/-, on 14.03.2024, a sum of Rs.2000/-, on 17.04.2024, a sum of 16 2026:HHC:31738 Rs.3300/-, on 19.04.2024, a sum of Rs.3300/-, on 21.04.2024, a sum of Rs.3200/-, on 21.04.2024, a sum of Rs.2900/-, on 21.04.2024, a sum of Rs.300/-, on 22.04.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 22.04.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 22.04.2024, a sum of Rs.900/-, on 22.04.2024, a sum of Rs.80/-, on 02.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 02.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 02.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 02.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 05.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 05.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 05.05.2024, a sum of Rs.200/-, on 13.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 13.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 13.05.2024, a sum of Rs.800/-, on 13.05.2024, a sum of Rs.200/-, on 17.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 17.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 17.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 20.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1500/-. Thus, he has made total transactions worth Rs.32,680/-. 4.32. It is the further case of the Police that accused Deepak Sharma (applicant), had made a transaction of Rs.5870/- in the bank account of Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, maintained with Axis Bank, as such, there is total transaction of Rs.59,150/-. 17 2026:HHC:31738 4.33. On 14.01.2025, accused Deepak Sharma (applicant) was associated, who has disclosed that he is consuming Chitta from the year 2024. Initially, when, he has started consuming Chitta, he used to purchase the same from local boys; namely Naresh Kumar, Ankush. Thereafter, with his friends and other boys of the area, he had started purchasing Chitta, for further sale about one year ago. Naresh, resident of Rohru, has disclosed to him about the involvement of Shahi Mahatma. Thereafter, he has started purchasing Chitta, from Shahi Mahatma. 4.34. It has also been mentioned, in the status report, that in the Bank account of applicant Deepak Sharma, there were transactions, from the account of accused Purskrit Verma, of a sum of Rs.900/- on 13.10.2023, a sum of Rs.900/- on 13.10.2023, a sum of Rs.900/- on 15.10.2023, a sum of Rs.900/- on 16.10.2023, a sum of Rs.900/- on 31.10.2023, a sum of Rs.900/- on 01.11.2023, a sum of Rs.1000/- on 09.12.2023, a sum of Rs.400/- on 11.12.2023, a sum of Rs.1100/- on 14.12.2023, a sum of Rs.1000/- on 19.12.2023, a sum of Rs.700/- on 20.12.2023, a sum of Rs.400/- on 13.10.2023, a sum of Rs.900/- on 04.01.2024, a sum of 18 2026:HHC:31738 Rs.900/- on 11.01.2024, a sum of Rs.370/- on 13.01.2024, a sum of Rs.200/- on 13.01.2024, a sum of Rs.1200/- on 08.02.2024, a sum of Rs.800/- on 16.02.2024, a sum of Rs.300/- on 24.02.2024, a sum of Rs.100/- on 24.02.2024, a sum of Rs.400/- on 26.02.2024, a sum of Rs.200/- on 29.03.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/- on 10.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/- on 10.08.2024, a sum of Rs.1800/- on 12.08.2024, a sum of Rs.700/- on 14.08.2024, a sum of Rs.900/- on 24.08.2024. 4.35. It has further been mentioned in the status report that accused Jatin Thakur, has transferred a sum of Rs.678/- on 26.08.2024, a sum of Rs.600/- on 24.09.2024, a sum of Rs.2580/- on 25.09.2024. Thus, he has transferred a total sum of Rs.3858/-. 4.36. Accused Mohit Thakur, has transferred a sum of Rs.300/- on 07.08.2024, a sum of Rs.1500/- on 09.08.2024, a sum of Rs.300/- on 09.08.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/- on 11.08.2024, a sum of Rs.500/- on 11.08.2024. Thus, he has transferred a total sum of Rs.3600/-. 19 2026:HHC:31738 4.37. Similarly, accused Naresh has transferred a sum of Rs.400/- on 05.02.2024, a sum of Rs.500/- on 17.02.2024, a sum of Rs.1300/- on 19.03.2024. Thus, he has transferred a total sum of Rs.2200/-. 4.38. Similarly, accused Brij Mohan has transferred a sum of Rs.1800/- on 19.02.2024, a sum of Rs.200/- on 19.02.2024, a sum of Rs.600/- on 01.03.2024, a sum of Rs.200/- on 01.03.2024. Thus, he has transferred a sum of Rs.2800/-. 4.39. Thus, according to the Police, Deepak Sharma has made transactions worth Rs.33,228/- from his account with the other accused persons. As such, there is specific allegation that Deepak Sharma (applicant), has made transactions of a total sum of Rs.92,378/- with the other accused persons. Similar allegations have also been levelled against the other accused in this case. 5. After completion of investigation, the police had filed the charge-sheet. Considering the statements of the witnesses recorded, under Section 161 of Cr.PC., as well as, the documents, relied upon by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has passed the order on 21.07.2025, discharging the accused persons from the offences 20 2026:HHC:31738 punishable under Section 27-A of NDPS Act, read with Section 111 of BNS. 6. Aggrieved from the said order, State has preferred the present revision petition, before this Court, on the ground, that the learned trial Court, while, discharging the accused persons from the offences, punishable under Section 27-A of NDPS Act and Section 111 of BNS, has not considered the evidence, so collected, by the IO, in the present case. No reason is stated to have been assigned, by the learned trial Court, while discharging the accused, as mentioned, above. 7. Highlighting the fact that there were financial transactions between the main accused-Mudasir Ahmad Mochi, with other accused persons, as mentioned, in the report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., it has been contended that the learned trial Court has fallen into an error, by discharging the accused persons, from the offences punishable under Section 27-A of NDPS Act and Section 111 of BNS. 8. The findings have further been assailed, on the ground, that the learned trial Court has not considered the fact that the multiple transactions, even up to 200 times 21 2026:HHC:31738 w.e.f. 01.01.2024 to 01.11.2024, by the accused persons, with the main accused-Mudasir Ahmad Mochi and Shahi Mahatama are sufficient to frame the charges, against them. 9. The State has also given the history of the cases registered against the respondents, namely Khushi Ram, Aman Negi, Sahil Thakur, Harsh Dhanta, Balwan Singh, Aman Kumar, Kanwar Thakur, Anuj Chauhan, Brij Mohan, Arvind Chauhan, Surjeet @ Sanjeet, Hanish Ranta, Harshit Chauhan, Harinder Manta Vivek Kumar, Purskrit Verma, Salman Haider, Prithvi Raj, Narender Kumar and Ashutosh Sharma. 10. Highly relying upon the evidence, so collected, by the prosecution, qua the chain of drug money, through CDRs, bank statements and digital evidence, a prayer has been made that the learned trial Court has erroneously discharged the accused persons, without any reasons. 11. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. H.S. Rawat, and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial and Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocates General, appearing for the appellant have prayed that the order passed by the 22 2026:HHC:31738 learned trial Court on 21.07.2025, may kindly be set-aside and the accused persons, may kindly be chargesheeted for the offences, punishable under Section 27-A of NDPS Act and 111 of BNS, along with the other offences, for which, they have already been chargesheeted. 12. The prayer, so made, by the learned Additional Advocate General has been opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the accused persons, on the ground, that the learned trial Court has rightly discharged the accused persons from the offences punishable under Section 27-A and Section 111 of BNS, as the prosecution could not collect any evidence, upon which, even a finger of suspicion can be raised, against the accused persons for the commission of the above offences. 13. Supporting the order passed by the learned trial Court, a prayer has been made to dismiss the revision petition. 14. In the present case, after completion of the investigation, the police has filed the charge sheet, under Sections 21, 29, 27-A of NDPS Act and Section 111 of BNS, whereas, the learned trial Court has discharged the 23 2026:HHC:31738 accused persons from the offences, punishable under Section 27-A of NDPS Act and Section 111 of BNS. 15. The learned trial Court, in the present case, has discharged the accused persons from the offences under Section 27-A and Section 111 of BNS, by passing the following order on 21.07.2025: “Heard. From the perusal of challan, FIR and other relevant documents relied upon by the prosecution, there exists a prima facie case for the commission of offences punishable under Section 21 & 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act against the accused Mudasir Ahmed Mochi and the commission of offences punishable under Section 29 read with Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act against the rest of accused persons. There is no material on record to establish case under Section 27A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act and under Section 111 of BNSS against accused accused persons, hence, accused persons are discharged for the commission of offences punishable under Section 27A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act and under Section 111 of BNSS.” 16. The order has been assailed before this Court, by way of revision by the State. 17. The object of framing of charge against the accused persons, in a criminal trial, is to make them aware about the case, for which, they are to be tried by the Court by clearly explaining to them the main facts sought to be established, against them, by the prosecution, or the 24 2026:HHC:31738 complainant. At the time of framing the charge, the Court has to consider the material collected by the prosecution and available on the record. 18. At the time of framing of charge, the Court can consider only the material, placed before it, by the investigating agency. The only right of the accused, at the stage of framing of the charge, is of being heard and nothing beyond the material produced, by the prosecution. At the time of framing the charge, the duty of the Court, is to see, whether the ingredients of the offences are available in the material produced, before the Court, the sufficiency and truthfulness of the material, as well as, statements of the witnesses, so recorded, cannot be examined at the stage of framing the charge. For the limited purpose, the Court may go through the evidence, so recorded, by the IO, as well as, the documents, collected by him, during the investigation. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case, titled as Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal versus Anil Kumar Bhunja and others, reported in AIR 1980, Supreme Court 52, has elaborately, discussed the 25 2026:HHC:31738 provisions of Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. Relevant paragraph 18 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:- “18. It may be remembered that the case was at the stage of framing charges; the prosecution evidence had not yet commenced. The Magistrate had therefore, to consider the above question on a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating police officer. At this stage, as was pointed out by this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh , the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged; may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.” (Self emphasis supplied) 20. At the time of framing the charge, there is no legal requirement for the trial Court to record the reasons, but, in case, the learned trial Court has decided to discharge the accused, recording of reason is mandatory, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case, titled as Kanti Bhadra Shah and another versus State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 522. Relevant paragraphs 8 to 11, are reproduced, as under:- “8. We wish to point out that if the trial court decides to frame a charge there is no legal requirement that he should pass an order specifying the reasons as to why he opts to do so. Framing of charge itself is prima facie order that the trial judge has formed the opinion, upon consideration of the police report and other documents and after hearing 26 2026:HHC:31738 both sides, that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence concerned. Chapter XIX deals with provisions for trial of warrant cases instituted on police report. Section 239 reads thus : 239. When accused shall be discharged. - (1) If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing. 9. The said Section shows that the Magistrate is obliged to record his reasons if he decides to discharge the accused. The next section (Section 240) reads thus : 240, Framing of charge - (1) If, upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried. 10. It is pertinent to note that this section required a Magistrate to record his reasons for discharging the accused but there is no such requirement if he forms the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence which he is competent to try. In such a situation he is only required to frame a charge in writing against the accused. 11. Even in cases instituted otherwise than on police report the Magistrate is required to write an order showing the reasons only if he is to discharge the accused. This is clear from Section 245. As per first sub-section of Section 245, if a magistrate, after taking all the evidence considers that no case against the accused has been made out which if unrebutted would warrant his conviction, he shall discharge the accused. As per sub-section (2) the Magistrate is empowered to discharge the accused at any previous stage of the case if he considers the charge to be groundless. Under both sub-sections he is obliged to record his reasons for doing so. In this context it is pertinent to point out that even in a trial before a court of session, the judge is required to record reasons only if he 27 2026:HHC:31738 decides to discharge the accused. (vide Section 227 of the Code). But if he is to frame the charge he may do so without recording his reasons for showing why he framed the charge.” (Self emphasis supplied) 21. Similar view has also taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case, titled as Om Wati and another versus State through Delhi Admn. And others, reported in (2001) 4 Supreme Court Cases 333. Relevant paragraphs 7 to 10 of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:- “7. Section 227 of the Code provides that if upon consideration of record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused for which he is required to record his reasons for so doing. No reasons are required to be recorded when the charges are framed against the accused persons. This Court in Kanti Bhadra Shah & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal [2000 (1) SCC 722] held that there is no legal requirement that the trial court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge. Taking note of the burden of the pending cases on the courts, it was held: "11. Even in cases instituted otherwise than on a police report the Magistrate is required to write an order showing the reasons only if he is to discharge the accused. This is clear from Section 245. As per the first sub-section of Section 245, if a Magistrate, after taking all the evidence considers that no case against the accused has been made out which if unrebutted would warrant his conviction, he shall discharge the accused. As per sub-section (2) the Magistrate is empowered to discharge the accused at any previous stage of the case if he considers the charge to be groundless. Under both sub-sections he is obliged to record his reasons for doing so. In this context it is pertinent to point out that even in a trial before a court of session, the Judge is required to record reasons only if he decides to discharge the accused (vide Section 227 of the Code). But if he 28 2026:HHC:31738 is to frame the charge he may do so without recording his reasons for showing why he framed the charge. 12. If there is no legal requirement that the trial court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge, why should the already burdened trial courts be further burdened with such an extra work. The time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the court procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all roadblocks causing avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to write detailed orders at different stages merely because the counsel would address arguments at all stages, the snail-paced progress of proceedings in trial courts would further be slowed down. We are coming across interlocutory orders of Magistrates and Sessions Judges running into several pages. We can appreciate if such a detailed order has been passed for culminating the proceedings before them. But it is quite unnecessary to write detailed orders at this stage, such as issuing process, remanding the accused to custody, framing of charges, passing over to next stages in the trial. It is a salutary guideline that when orders rejecting or granting bail are passed, the court should avoid expressing one way or the other on contentious issues, except in cases such as those falling within Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act, 1985". 8. At the stage of passing the order in terms of Section 227 of the Code, the Court has merely to peruse the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If upon consideration, the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the accused, the Judge must proceed to frame charge in terms of Section 228 of the Code. Only in a case where it is shown that the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence cannot show that the accused committed the crime, then and then alone the court can discharge the accused. The court is not required to enter into meticulous consideration of evidence and material placed before it at this stage. This Court in Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad vs. Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr. [1989 (1) SCC 715] cautioned the High Courts to be loathe in interfering at the stage of framing the charges against the accused. Self-restraint on the part of the 29 2026:HHC:31738 High Court should be the rule unless there is a glaring injustice staring the court in the face. The opinion on many matters can differ depending upon the person who views it. There may be as many opinions on a particular point, as there are courts but that would not justify the High Court to interdict the trial. Generally, it would be appropriate for the High Court to allow the trial to proceed. 9. Dealing with the scope of Sections 227 and 288 of the Code and the limitations imposed upon the court at the initial stage of framing the charge, this Court in State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh [AIR 1977 SC 2018] held: "Reading the two provisions together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at this stage of deciding the matter under S.227 or S.228 of the Code. At that stage the court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if 30 2026:HHC:31738 fully accepted before it is challenged in cross- examination or rebutted by the defence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, there there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. An exhaustive list of the circumstances to indicate as to what will lead to one conclusion or the other is neither possible nor advisable. We may just illustrate the difference of the law by one more example. If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even at the conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his acquittal. But if, on the other hand, it is so at the initial stage of making an order under S.227 or S.228, then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be made will be one under S.228 and not under S.227." 10. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors. [AIR 1980 SC 52] reminded the courts that at the initial stage of framing of charges, the prosecution evidence does not commence. The Court has, therefore, to consider the question of framing the charges on general considerations of the material placed before it by the investigating agency. At this stage, the truth, veracity and effect of the judgment which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding an accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing the charge. Even on the basis of a strong suspicion founded on materials before it, the court can form a presumptive opinion regarding the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and in that event be justified in framing the charges against the accused in respect of the commission of the offence alleged to have been committed by them. Relying upon its earlier judgements in Ramesh Singh and Anil Kumar Bhunja's cases (supra) this Court again in Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration [1996 (9) SCC 766] reiterated: "9. Considerations which should weigh with the Sessions Court at this stage have been well designed by Parliament through Section 227 of the Code of 31 2026:HHC:31738 Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') which reads thus: "227. Discharge—If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing." Section 228 contemplates the stage after the case survives the stage envisaged in the former section. When the court is of opinion that there is ground to presume that the accused has committed an offence the procedure laid down therein has to be adopted. When those two sections are put in juxtaposition with each other the test to be adopted becomes discernible: Is there sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused? It is axiomatic that the standard of proof normally adhered to at the final stage is not to be applied at the stage where the scope of consideration is where there is "sufficient ground for proceeding". (Self emphasis supplied) 22. The distinction between the provisions of Section 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. has been discussed, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case, titled as Amit Kapoor versus Ramesh Chander and another, reported in (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 460. Relevant paragraph 17 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:- “17. Framing of a charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court in terms of Section 228 of the Code, unless the accused is discharged under Section 227 of the Code. Under both these provisions, the court is required to consider the ‘record of the case’ and documents submitted therewith and, after hearing the parties, may 32 2026:HHC:31738 either discharge the accused or where it appears to the court and in its opinion there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, it shall frame the charge. Once the facts and ingredients of the Section exists, then the Court would be right in presuming that there is ground to proceed against the accused and frame the charge accordingly. This presumption is not a presumption of law as such. The satisfaction of the court in relation to the existence of constituents of an offence and the facts leading to that offence is a sine qua non for exercise of such jurisdiction. It may even be weaker than a prima facie case. There is a fine distinction between the language of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code. Section 227 is expression of a definite opinion and judgment of the Court while Section 228 is tentative. Thus, to say that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is an approach which is impermissible in terms of Section 228 of the Code.” 23. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case, titled as Shoraj Singh Ahlawat and others versus State of U.P. and another, reported in AIR 2013 Supreme Court Cases 52, has held that even a strong suspicion about existence of facts constituting offence is sufficient to refuse discharge. Relevant paragraph 11 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:- “11. A plain reading of the above would show that the Court trying the case can direct discharge only for reasons to be recorded by it and only if it considers the charge against the accused to be groundless. Section 240 of the Code provides for framing of a charge if, upon consideration of the police report and the documents sent therewith and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary, the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under Chapter XIX, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which can be adequately punished by him. The ambit of Section 239 Cr.P.C. and the approach to be adopted by the Court while exercising the powers vested in it under the said provision fell for consideration of this Court in Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) 33 2026:HHC:31738 and Anr. (2008) 2 SCC 561. That too was a case in which a complaint under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. was filed against the husband and parents-in-law of the complainant-wife. The Magistrate had in that case discharged the accused under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C, holding that the charge was groundless. The complainant questioned that order before the Revisional Court which directed the trial Court to frame charges against the accused persons. The High Court having affirmed that order, the matter was brought up to this Court. This Court partly allowed the appeal qua the parents-in-law while dismissing the same qua the husband. This Court explained the legal position and the approach to be adopted by the Court at the stage of framing of charges or directing discharge in the following words: “11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.” (emphasis supplied) 24. Judging the facts and circumstances of the present case, in light of the decisions, as referred to above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the order passed by the learned trial Court, which is impugned herein, does not sustain in the judicial scrutiny by this Court, as the learned trial Court has not even considered the material, 34 2026:HHC:31738 on record, what to talk about discarding the material, on record to discharge the accused persons. 25. The learned trial Court has simply held that there is no material on record to establish the case under Section 27-A of NDPS Act and Section 111 of BNS, which has wrongly been mentioned, in the order sheet, as BNSS. 26. In such situation, the criminal revision preferred by the State is allowed and the order dated 21.07.2025, passed by the learned trial Court is set-aside. 27. The matter is remanded to the learned trial Court with a request to decide the question of framing the charge, against the accused, in the light of observations, so made hereinabove, as well as, in view of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred to above. 28. Ordered accordingly. 29. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) Judge July 31, 2026 (Subhash Sharma)